I found this article in Car and Driver.
"Al Gore wasn’t the only guy flogging an 80-mpg car." by Patrick Bedard

For those who want to read the entire article...
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=9154

For those who want to cut to the chase, the Smokey Yunick passage is pasted here.

I don’t doubt Padgham when he says most of the inventors weren’t charlatans, but it wasn’t always easy to tell the difference. Early in 1984 I went down to “The Best Damn Garage in Town,” town being Daytona Beach, Florida, along with Don Sherman, C/D technical director at that time, for a look at Smokey Yunick’s “phase-one adiabatic hot-vapor” engine. It was a 2.2-liter Chrysler four promising 0 to 60 in six seconds and 50 mpg.

Sherman and I are both engineers by training and wary of those who claim to have found an end run around the laws of thermodynamics. Yunick had been doing his rulebook double-shuffle against NASCAR’s canniest tech inspectors for decades before we arrived. We didn’t expect a PowerPoint presentation. What we got was the full wizard act, a sinewy guy in the white coveralls you see “before” in the detergent commercials. Even at breakfast I don’t remember that he removed his bad-cowboy black hat. It was oil-soaked at the band and permanently embedded with aluminum chips from his machine shop.

He was 60 then. I think the man and his act were already inseparable. If you fell for the act, maybe you wouldn’t notice the fundamental outrageousness of his claims. He had a high-compression engine with a turbocharger. Very risky with the crude controls of mixture and timing of those days. The usual technique then and now is to add an intercooler to the intake stream. Yunick had an interheater instead. Yes, retaining heat helps efficiency, at least theoretically, but you might just as well put a .357 Magnum to the cylinder head.

We went out for a test drive. The car pulled like hell. It pinged like hell, too, and busted a piston early in the acceleration runs.

Yunick stuck to his story. We didn’t buy it. Later I heard that he had sold his “hot vapor” patents to some big company, along with a multi-year consulting contract that would keep the cash flowing into his pockets. For the honest inventors and for the charlatans alike, that was always the touchdown.

Was he on to something we simply couldn’t comprehend? Let’s just say, two decades and many mpg regulations later, I don’t see any “hot vapor” engines.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 03-14-2005).]

well, I think the problem was they werent using the Tornado and the 20 HP mod chip. that, along with the Plasma sparking spark plugs and he'd be all set. and if that not fast enough, slap an electric supercharger on top.
booya

Smokey was an engineering genius " Americas best mechanic".

quote Originally posted by Master Tuner Akimoto: Smokey was an engineering genius " Americas best mechanic".

yes he is/was (I think he's still alive).

A colorful sticker would have taken care of the "ping"...

He died in 2001

I was lucky to meet Smokey a few years ago. He was my hero and I am proud to have a signed poster for my garage.

Though I still never bought the Fiero rig he had.

[This message has been edited by hyperv6 (edited 03-14-2005).]

I read about Smokey's theory a couple of years ago and have been thinking about it...

Think about running a thermostatic heat exchanger between the fuel and the engine coolant... Heat the fuel up sufficiently that it will be vapor at ambient pressure, but remains liquid within the high pressure confines of the fuel rail. When the injector fires, the fuel will flash vaporize, rather than atomizing and possibly improve mixture homogeneity since it doesn't require being sprayed onto the hot intake valve to vaporize it...

I think I'll try that when I get my car back on the road... one of my heater hoses runs very close to my fuel lines...

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 03-14-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Will: I read about Smokey's theory a couple of years ago and have been thinking about it... Think about running a thermostatic heat exchanger between the fuel and the engine coolant... Heat the fuel up sufficiently that it will be vapor at ambient pressure, but remains liquid within the high pressure confines of the fuel rail. When the injector fires, the fuel will flash vaporize, rather than atomizing and possibly improve mixture homogeneity since it doesn't require being sprayed onto the hot intake valve to vaporize it... I think I'll try that when I get my car back on the road... one of my heater hoses runs very close to my fuel lines...

Actually that is old technology now :-) Do a google search for GDI or Gasoline Direct Injection. Now the injector is firong directly in the combustion chamber so that the air/fuel mix can be placed more accurately (time and placement) and layered as needed to control the flame front. Heating the fuel isn't going to help and causes to many other problems especially in your senario where the unused fuel returns to the tank. If it's hot you heat the tank and cause vapor pressure problems, one of the reasons they are moving away from systems that return fuel to tank and going back to returnless systems.

Smokey was a regular in Pop Science for years.
He used to push the limits on racing rules like using a 3 inch
fuel line when the tanks' volume was set, air jacks to raise the car up in
the pits, things like that. I followed his work for several years and I think
if he had any truly revolutionary ideas, they would have shown up in the
market place by now. Subtle ideas already may have, they just get
worked into the overall design, a part of the whole.
I always loved his "out-of-the-box" do-something style.
He failed at many efforts, but he tried things and some worked.

[This message has been edited by TennT (edited 03-15-2005).]

Smokey was a definite innovator, one of his ideas that it just getting widespread use if the CVT which is a transmission that keeps adjusting to maintain the engine within a very narrow rpm range. Point was to keep the engine at it's optimun point allowing the designers to build an engine that is even more efficient at that point rather than compramising to make a broader powerband. Drawback on the early version he sold Subaru (was in the Justy) was that it couldn't handle much torque. Now they are showing up in large SUVs.

I liked his alternator without a belt... tried to run a propellor to use the airflow thru the engine bay to turn the alternator instead. I don't believe he raced that day...

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Actually that is old technology now :-) Do a google search for GDI or Gasoline Direct Injection. Now the injector is firong directly in the combustion chamber so that the air/fuel mix can be placed more accurately (time and placement) and layered as needed to control the flame front. Heating the fuel isn't going to help and causes to many other problems especially in your senario where the unused fuel returns to the tank. If it's hot you heat the tank and cause vapor pressure problems, one of the reasons they are moving away from systems that return fuel to tank and going back to returnless systems.

I know what GDI is... They're also dealing with 1500 psi rail pressures. Makes the application easier.

If I put a heater in the supply line, is it really that hard to put a cooler in the return line?

I have a feeling you would want the amount of heat applied to the fuel to be variable..
at low RPM its beneficial to cool the fuel, as the fuel then sucks heat out of the air charge and allows a more advanced timing curve
but at higher rpm the effect can be too slow and you are more focused on the speed of combustion for maximum power, which is when a pre-vaporized fuel will generate more power.. its a delicate balancing act

A great inovator in NASCAR. He was influential in designing, or introducing, working model of a soft compression wall. The idea was to construct a retaining wall of something other than concrete. Obviously, concrete causes damage to occupants baased on its unforgiving qualities. He built a wall from used tires! Perhaps his idea could have saved Dale Earnhardt(and other) who met their fate based on old ideas.
Did you also know he built a TWO phase firing-order engine? The idea there was to unlock possible power when the engine was rotating to the next cycle. At that time, late fifties to early sixties, the technology was not practice. He blew up every eingine it was tried on. I have a bunch more stories of this famed mechanic. Prod me for more, and I could shae them with you.

Sincerely,

Kevin J. Sullivan

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: I liked his alternator without a belt... tried to run a propellor to use the airflow thru the engine bay to turn the alternator instead. I don't believe he raced that day...

Hmmm...wonder if it would've worked if he'd used a duct run back to a squirrel cage-type turbine. At NASCAR speeds, there ought to be plenty of available airflow near the front of the car...if nothing else, he could've driven it through D.C. --- with all the available hot air out of Congress, it would've been the nearest thing to a perpetual motion machine ever invented...

quote Originally posted by Kohburn: I have a feeling you would want the amount of heat applied to the fuel to be variable.. at low RPM its beneficial to cool the fuel, as the fuel then sucks heat out of the air charge and allows a more advanced timing curve but at higher rpm the effect can be too slow and you are more focused on the speed of combustion for maximum power, which is when a pre-vaporized fuel will generate more power.. its a delicate balancing act

Alcohol injection works via the same principle... the droplets transfer heat very quickly due to their very low mass/surface are ratio. I think it'll be an interesting experiment...

quote Originally posted by Will: If I put a heater in the supply line, is it really that hard to put a cooler in the return line?

You could run the lines parallel, on either side of a peltier device. Maybe.

Vaporization is an old idea and yes, it does actually work and produce better mileage and lower emmissions...in the lab. I have only seen one real world device that actually worked with any degree of success in an everyday car. It used electromagnetism to vaporize the fuel rather than a heat exchanger which is a clumsy solution at best. I've also seen interesting studies using oscilatiing crystals to atomize fuel too, but again, no real world applications. The thermodynamics is sound, are you going to get more efficient combustion out of a single large drop of fuel/air or a billion tiny drops of fuel/air? More complete combustion means lower emissions and increased heat energy.

The issue I have is not with the science it is with the lack of R&D. With such obvious benefits to our air quality and modest increases in vehicle performance, we should expect to see more money invested and yet we don't.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Vaporization is an old idea and yes, it does actually work and produce better mileage and lower emmissions...in the lab. I have only seen one real world device that actually worked with any degree of success in an everyday car. It used electromagnetism to vaporize the fuel rather than a heat exchanger which is a clumsy solution at best. I've also seen interesting studies using oscilatiing crystals to atomize fuel too, but again, no real world applications. The thermodynamics is sound, are you going to get more efficient combustion out of a single large drop of fuel/air or a billion tiny drops of fuel/air? More complete combustion means lower emissions and increased heat energy. The issue I have is not with the science it is with the lack of R&D. With such obvious benefits to our air quality and modest increases in vehicle performance, we should expect to see more money invested and yet we don't.

we can just roll with the oil company conspiracies since everyone knows they buy the pattents on all these little devices

I'm not convinced they're conspiracies. Back in 83 Honda had an HF CRX with A/C delete that got over 50mpg. I've seen articles about cars in Japan that get over 90mpg and are very fast. In the US, Honda brags about the hybrid Civic that gets like 42 mpg? Why is it that a 4 cylinder in 1983 got 10mpg better than a new hybrid contraption made by the same company, no less? Why is the current administration so adamant about repealing clean air laws and fleet average regulations? Why can a Corvette get 22mpg and my Grand am quad 4 gets only a few more? It comes down to marketing and keeping money in the hands of those who already have it.
They've cleaned up emmissions tremendously, but mpg hasn't changed in 20 years. Right now, I guarantee they're not thinking of ways to build hydrogen infrastructure to take the burden of high fuel prices off the public. They're working on ways to tranfer the high prices of gasoline to hydrogen. Ba$tard$...

maybe we should start a chain of PFF gas stations that sell fuel alchohal.. thre more there are the more pressure it'd put on the competition to do the same.. soon enough it'd be a nation wide trend to sell fuel alchohal

daydream, I know

oil company/car company/ government.. either way its anoying

i should mention though that if a transmission is sized for each engine, highway milage will only vary based on engine efficiency, friction losses, tires rolling resistance, and drag coefficient..

if you have two of the same car with two different drivetrains a 2L and a 4L with the proper gearing and both are equally efficient at burning gas then they should have identical highway milage

its just a factor of how much HP is required to maintain the speed.. this is where a CVT comes into play with drasticly increasing milage.. think about it.. if a geo metro got 60mpg.. then with a v8 and the right gear ratios that v8 would also get 60mpg on the highway.. untill you lay into the gas..

[This message has been edited by Kohburn (edited 03-16-2005).]

For the last 3 years I've ridden a CVT equipped motor scooter to work. For two years I rode a 50cc direct injected Italian bike that got 120mpg. Last year I got my motorcycle endorsement and upgraded to a 250cc with a computer controlled carburetor that gets about 60mpg. The 250 is a four stroke rated at 23hp, the 50 was a 2 stroke rated at 6hp. I ride the same roads to work. The 250 runs at about 5500rpm under acceleration, the 50 ran at 8500 all the time. The 250 engine is five times bigger than the 50 but the 250 bike weighs roughly twice what the 50 weighs (360lbs).
A coworker of mine has a hybrid Honda Civic that gets 42mpg and uses a CVT, my boss has a harley with a 1500cc engine that gets 45mpg.

Anyway, I don't know what I'm trying to say here, but there's a lot of variation in vehicles. I'm no dullard but I don't see a mathematical correlation in the vehicles I mentioned:

Aprilia 50cc w/CVT 120mpg
Kymco 250cc w/CVT 60mpg
Honda Hybrid 1500cc w/CVT 42mpg
Harley 1500cc 45mpg
My Grand Am 2300cc 30mpg

All I really see is the bigger the engine, the worse the mileage. But then I know that my SC3800/5speed Fiero got close to the same mileage as the Buick Riviera that it came out of. I would think with different weights, aerodynamics, transmissions, etc the mileage should be different. I dunno. Anybody have answers?

------------------
-Rick Stewart
85GT 5.0LCaddyV8/Isuzu 5-spd in progress...

quote Originally posted by Raydar: You could run the lines parallel, on either side of a peltier device. Maybe.

That's actually a pretty good idea. With the volume of fuel though, you'd need several run along the length of a liquid heat exchanger. I think the temperature differential is up to 70 degrees C on them though... So you'll probably want to have the coolant heat exchanger afterwards anyways.

Looking through the archives, some people said they had a pdf of the hot rod magazine article about his fiero project. Does anyone still have this, I would be very interested in seeing it if anyone has it.

.

[This message has been edited by FieroAddict (edited 05-01-2005).]

The concept was pretty good for its day; heat up the intake so that the fuel would vaporize completely. The turbo wasn't as much for boost as it was to stir up the mixture even more. Unfortunately, the realities of auto engineering weren't up to this kind of abuse.

It's always nice to imagine how to squeeze more and more power from an engine, but there are some very real limits to how much pressure and temperature you can confine in the cylinders. Usually you find it when the head bolts give a little and the head gasket blows - or maybe you'll find it when you pop some holes in the tops of the pistons. No matter how good the concept, if you try to make that K-car engine produce that kind of power its life expectancy will be measured in minutes.

There's other considerations, too - the ultimate efficiency of a heat engine can be determined by the differential between the intake, combustion, and exhaust temperatures. Best efficiency comes from very cold intake, very hot combustion, cool exhaust. The value of cold air intakes come from this; they get the intake temperature down a little and provide a small boost in efficiency.

Unfortunately, emissions regulations don't allow for highly efficient engines. To reduce the amount of NOX in the exhaust, the combustion temperature must be kept low - this is what the EGR is for, feed exhaust into the intake to displace combustible mixture and carry heat away. This works pretty well to cut the NOX emissions, but it also severely damages the efficiency of the engine.

There's also the catalytic converter (also required) that demands that the exhaust stream be hot enough to heat the conveter to operating temperature. The hot exhaust is another strike against efficiency.

Smokey's hot vapor engine isn't remotely compatible with federal emissions regulations - this is why nothing ever came of it. Otherwise, engines could have been made tough enough to run under his operating conditions and we'd be driving good performing cars with great mileage.

I've got to give the auto manufacturers credit for the amazing job they've done in meeting those emissions regulations and still providing decent performing autos that don't cost a lot to operate. The difference in emissions between Smokey's hot vapor days and now is striking. With modern vehicles, commiting suicide by sitting in a running car in a closed garage no longer works - the exhaust is that much cleaner.